linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: kirill@shutemov.name (Kirill A. Shutemov)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC] change non-atomic bitops method
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 03:17:30 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150203011730.GA15653@node.dhcp.inet.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150202152909.13bfd11f192fb0268b2ab4bf@linux-foundation.org>

On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:29:09PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 11:55:03 +0800 "Wang, Yalin" <Yalin.Wang@sonymobile.com> wrote:
> 
> > This patch change non-atomic bitops,
> > add a if() condition to test it, before set/clear the bit.
> > so that we don't need dirty the cache line, if this bit
> > have been set or clear. On SMP system, dirty cache line will
> > need invalidate other processors cache line, this will have
> > some impact on SMP systems.
> > 
> > --- a/include/asm-generic/bitops/non-atomic.h
> > +++ b/include/asm-generic/bitops/non-atomic.h
> > @@ -17,7 +17,9 @@ static inline void __set_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
> >  	unsigned long mask = BIT_MASK(nr);
> >  	unsigned long *p = ((unsigned long *)addr) + BIT_WORD(nr);
> >  
> > -	*p  |= mask;
> > +	if ((*p & mask) == 0)
> > +		*p  |= mask;
> > +
> >  }
> 
> hm, maybe.
> 
> It will speed up set_bit on an already-set bit.  But it will slow down
> set_bit on a not-set bit.  And the latter case is presumably much, much
> more common.
> 
> How do we know the patch is a net performance gain?

Let's try to measure. The micro benchmark:

	#include <stdio.h>
	#include <time.h>
	#include <sys/mman.h>

	#ifdef CACHE_HOT
	#define SIZE (2UL << 20)
	#define TIMES 10000000
	#else
	#define SIZE (1UL << 30)
	#define TIMES 10000
	#endif

	int main(int argc, char **argv)
	{
		struct timespec a, b, diff;
		unsigned long i, *p, times = TIMES;

		p = mmap(NULL, SIZE, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
				MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_POPULATE, -1, 0);
		
		clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &a);
		while (times--) {
			for (i = 0; i < SIZE/64/sizeof(*p); i++) {
	#ifdef CHECK_BEFORE_SET
				if (p[i] != times)
	#endif
					p[i] = times;
			}
		}
		clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &b);

		diff.tv_sec = b.tv_sec - a.tv_sec;
		if (a.tv_nsec > b.tv_nsec) {
			diff.tv_sec--;
			diff.tv_nsec = 1000000000 + b.tv_nsec - a.tv_nsec;
		} else
			diff.tv_nsec = b.tv_nsec - a.tv_nsec;

		printf("%lu.%09lu\n", diff.tv_sec, diff.tv_nsec);
		return 0;
	}

Results for 10 runs on my laptop -- i5-3427U (IvyBridge 1.8 Ghz, 2.8Ghz Turbo
with 3MB LLC):

				Avg		Stddev
baseline			21.5351		0.5315
-DCHECK_BEFORE_SET		21.9834		0.0789
-DCACHE_HOT			14.9987		0.0365
-DCACHE_HOT -DCHECK_BEFORE_SET	29.9010		0.0204

Difference between -DCACHE_HOT and -DCACHE_HOT -DCHECK_BEFORE_SET appears
huge, but if you recalculate it to CPU cycles per inner loop @ 2.8 Ghz,
it's 1.02530 and 2.04401 CPU cycles respectively.

Basically, the check is free on decent CPU. 

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov

  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-02-03  1:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-02-02  3:55 [RFC] change non-atomic bitops method Wang, Yalin
2015-02-02 18:53 ` Laura Abbott
2015-02-02 19:31 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-02-02 23:29 ` Andrew Morton
2015-02-02 23:31   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-03  1:17   ` Kirill A. Shutemov [this message]
2015-02-03  2:13     ` Wang, Yalin
2015-02-03  5:42       ` Wang, Yalin
2015-02-03  6:38         ` Andrew Morton
2015-02-03  7:03           ` Wang, Yalin
2015-02-03  8:42             ` Wang, Yalin
2015-02-03 10:59               ` Andrew Morton
2015-02-09  8:18                 ` Wang, Yalin
2015-02-09 20:34                   ` Andrew Morton
2015-02-10  7:05                     ` Wang, Yalin
2015-02-09 21:42                   ` Rasmus Villemoes
2015-02-03  8:40           ` David Miller
2015-02-03  8:48             ` Andrew Morton
2015-02-03  9:34           ` Rasmus Villemoes
2015-02-03  9:41             ` Wang, Yalin
2015-02-03 10:39     ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2015-02-03 15:14 ` David Howells
2015-02-03 19:10   ` Uwe Kleine-König

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20150203011730.GA15653@node.dhcp.inet.fi \
    --to=kirill@shutemov.name \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).